WOODIE H. THOMAS, III, APPELLANT,
v.
VISION I HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Thomas appeals a trial court judgment awarding the homeowners association damages and attorneys' fees for nonpayment of assessments and roof repair costs. The trial court found the association properly levied assessments for sidewalk repairs and roof repairs in accordance with its governing documents, and this court affirms.
The trial court correctly determined that the Association properly followed its governing documents in taking the contested actions. The assessments levied by the Association for improvements and for payment of loans were valid.
[1] A homeowners association's constitution and bylaws, when assented to by members, constitute a contract between the member and the association.
[2] A trial court's factual findings are reviewed under a competent and substantial evidence standard.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The constitution and by-laws of a voluntary association, when subscribed or assented to by the members, becomes a contract between each member and the association.”
Establishes that the governing documents of the homeowners association constitute a binding contract enforceable against members.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceVision I Homeowners Association brought suit against Thomas for nonpayment of assessments and failure to pay for roof repairs. The Association had lev…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Contract Interpretation cases and more on FLexlaw
POLEN, J.
Appellant Woodie H. Thomas appeals the trial court’s final judgment in favor of Appellee, Vision I Homeowners Association (the Association).
The Association brought an action against Thomas for nonpayment of assessments as well as failure to pay for roofing repairs. The Association had levied assessments against the homeowners for payment of a loan it had taken out to pay for sidewalk repairs and improvements and had paid for Thomas’s roof repairs when he did not pay the contractor. Thomas argued at trial that the Association did not follow the governing documents with regard to acquiring the loan for repairs and improvements and with regard to levying assessments to pay for these expenses. Following a bench trial, the trial court determined the evidence showed the assessments levied by the Association, both for improvements and for payment of the loans, were valid.
The trial court awarded money damages and attorneys’ fees and costs to the Association.
We affirm. The trial court’s factual findings are reviewed using a competent and substantial evidence standard. Houlihan’s Restaurants, Inc. v. APAC-Florida, Inc., 911 So. 2d 816, 818 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005). “The constitution and bylaws of a voluntary association, when subscribed or assented to by the members, becomes a contract between each member and the association.” Qadri v. PointDirex, L.L.C., 823 So. 2d 861, 863 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). “We review de novo the trial court’s interpretation of a contract. Interpretation of a contract is a question of law, and an appellate court may reach a construction contrary to that of the trial court.” Whitley v. Royal Trails Prop. Owners' Ass’n, 910 So. 2d 381, 385 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005). “Generally, the intentions of the parties to a contract govern its construction and interpretation. When determining intent, the best evidence is the plain language of the contract.” Royal Oak Landing Homeowner’s Ass’n v. Pelletier, 620 So. 2d 786, 788 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993).
After careful review of the governing documents, the record below and the parties’ briefs on appeal, we find the trial court correctly determined that the Association properly followed the governing documents in taking the contested actions. We find Thomas’s arguments to be unpersuasive and affirm the trial court’s ruling.
GUNTHER and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Prime Homes, Inc. v. Pine Lake, LLC, 84 So. 3d 1147 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)…so that the provision read “having typical dimensions of 70' x 120'.” It is within the purview of the appellate court’s authority to construe a contract in a way that is “ ‘contrary to that of the trial court.’ ” Thomas v. Vision I Homeowners Ass’n, 981 So. 2d 1, 2 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007). It is clear to this court that the original provision was ambiguous, as it stated that lots of 70' x 120' which exceeded 166 required additional pay, rather than stating that those dimensions were a minimum threshold. Therefo…
-
Waverly 1 & 2, LLC v. Waverly at Las Olas Condo Assoc, 242 So. 3d 425 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018)…owners to obtain written consent from the Association’s board before altering the landscaping. Analysis A trial court’s interpretation of a declaration of condominium is subject to de novo review. See Thomas v. Vision I Homeowner’s Ass’n, 981 So. 2d 1, 2 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007). “The constitution and by-laws of a voluntary association, when subscribed or assented to by the members, becomes a contract between each member and the association.” Id. (citation omitted). “Interpretation of a contract…
-
First Equitable Realty III, Ltd. v. Grandview Palace Condo. Ass'n, 46 So. 3d 1088 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)…contingent rights to parking spaces created within the boundaries of those units. This appeal followed. Analysis We review the trial court’s interpretation of the declaration of condominium and the deed de novo. Thomas v. Vision I Homeowners Ass’n, 981 So. 2d 1, 2 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007). The trial court’s conclusion was correct for two independently sufficient reasons. First, the right retained by First Equitable as developer in the amendment to Article XXV was a contingent right that had not been exercised…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Royal OAK Landing Homeowner's Ass'n, Inc. v. Pelletier, 620 So. 2d 786 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)
- Hoyte S. Whitley and Martha R. Whitley v. Royal Trails Prop. Owners' Ass'n, Inc., 910 So. 2d 381 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)
- Turner v. State, 911 So. 2d 816 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)
- Syed Haseeb Qadri v. Pointdirex, L.L.C., 823 So. 2d 861 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)